Originally Posted by Butters

The difference being the liklihood of either nation using them. Despite the nutbags who have some power in the US, they almost certainly will never use another nuclear bomb again, certainly not to attack another country anyway. It's possible they could drop one if they are attacked but even then I wouldn't see it happenning. The difference is the Iranians want one not for defensive purposes but have explicitly said they want one for offensive purposes, namely wiping Israel out of existence. This sort of rhetoric indicates a much higher likelihood of them using a nuke for offensive purposes then America.



Do you really, honestly think America is likely to use a nuclear bomb, save for say some unprovoked nuclear attack on them, and even if that were to happen do think it's likely to happen? You're obviously a very smart guy so I just can't see how you could rationally say yes to that.



Fair point I grant you. Of course America's past support of shockingly bad regimes are not really equivalent to Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah.



Trust me I know however America unlike any other country has a constitutional seperation of church and state. This will prevent it ever becoming a theocracy. Whatever the beliefs of the law makers they have to follow the constitution and that is what makes the US the anthisesis of nations like Iran.



Really? Iran is a theocracy, or a 'theodicy' for want of a better phrase. The mullahs run the country and the President is every bit as delusional.



I have no regard for Bush at all. I think he is an imbicile of the highest order. He's naive, childish, insecure, uneducated and I absolutely hate his use of faith as a justification for doing what he wants.



Yes but you surely can't be that short sighted. The Islamic facist movement is a major and iminent threat to world peace and America has no choice but to fight them for the sake of preserving freedom. I certainly don't think they are going about it in a smart or particularly effective fashion and that surely is a result of who is in charge but the threat to world peace is not America is any way at all. It is those that they are fighting who are the threat.
Imagine in 1938 America had launched an invasion of Germany to remove Adolf Hitler. You could well have made the argument that they was a destructive force to world peace but what would the alternative have been. As it turns out we know exactly what it was. Just because one nation is engaged in war at a given moment in time does not mean that that nation is responsible or the cause.

To argue America is the problem is absolute piffle, and I frankly find it difficult to sum up any respect or time for people with such attitudes. To argue that America is the danger to world peace makes the assumption that Bin Ladenism is like some sort of liberation theology and these people only exist and do what they do because of America's policies and if only America would change it's ways and it's foreign policies all these people would cease their violence, suicide bombings and efforts to reduce mankind to peasentry. This is an insane notion.